1992 (9) TMI 218 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 55/92 dated 31-3-1992 and its applicability timeline.
2. Effect of subsequent amending Notification No. 67/92 dated 22-5-1992 on the original Notification.
3. Consideration of Board's clarification in Cochin Trade Notice 66/92 dated 29-6-1992.
4. Legal validity of demand raised for the month of April, 1992.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the applicability of Notification No. 55/92 dated 31-3-1992, which amended the exemption provisions under Para 4 of Notification No. 175/86. The Assistant Collector had denied the appellants the benefit of Para 4(b) of the said Notification during April 1992 based on the amended Notification. The appellants argued that the effective date of the Notification should be when it was made available to the public for sale, not the date of publication. Citing legal precedents, they contended that the Notification could not be effective before 21-4-1992 when it was put up for sale. The Collector observed the legal position but noted a genuine doubt regarding the intention behind the Notification's applicability timeline.

2. During the hearing, the appellants highlighted the subsequent amending Notification No. 67/92 dated 22-5-1992, which stated that the amended provision would not apply from 22-5-1992 to 31-3-1993. They also referred to a clarification issued by the Board in Cochin Trade Notice 66/92, which indicated a restoration of the position before the issuance of Notification 55/92. The Collector analyzed the implications of these subsequent notifications on the original dispute and considered the impact on the demand raised for April 1992.

3. The Collector noted that the Assistant Collector had applied the provisions of Notification No. 55/92 to deny the appellants the benefit of the exemption during April 1992. However, the subsequent clarification by the Board and trade notices indicated a restoration of the previous position for unregistered units exceeding a certain threshold. The Collector emphasized the importance of this clarification in understanding the legislative intent behind the notifications and their application timeline.

4. Ultimately, the Collector concluded that the doubt regarding the intention behind the Notification's applicability timeline warranted clarification. With the subsequent clarification by the Board and trade notices, it became evident that the intention was to defer the application of Notification No. 55/92 until 1-4-1993. Therefore, the Collector annulled the Assistant Collector's decision, stating that it was no longer sustainable in light of the clarification. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants based on the clarified understanding of the notifications and their intended effect.